The way politics works in this case would then be to vote those out of office who challenge these changes. The problem with this is that the populace won't bec

The way politics works in this case would then be to vote those out of office who challenge these changes. The problem with this is that the populace won't because they are skeptical, for very good reasons. They see models not working (i.e. alarmism backfired), they see IPCC authors leaving and denouncing authorship because they view the report as too alarmist. They see people warning of "we'll have the worst hurricane seasons ever in the next 5 years!" and then very little happening. Alarmism has an unfortunate contribution to skepticism (while not the intended result of action) that will keep skeptics in power. And I think this is a good thing. You advocate for people like Smith to not have positions of power. You should also look at people on the other end of the spectrum, alarmists, who have power and try to use it to incite action. That backfires and we move nowhere. Skepticism, as I mentioned before, is a natural reaction to this. Change needs to come from both sides.